Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

First, the F-35 Joint Program Office is negotiating a $1.6 billion spare parts contract with Lockheed Martin.
This refers to what is being described as the Pentagon's largest-ever F-35 spare parts contract, set for 2026 (Image 2).

A 2023 GAO report revealed that over a million spare parts had gone missing or could not be tracked over the preceding years; additionally, issues with TR-3 hardware led to a suspension of F-35 deliveries (Image 3).

Image 2: The figure rose from $382 million in 2022 to $1.6 billion for 2026 (an increase of approximately 4.16 times); the $1.6 billion total includes about $1 billion in self-funded investment by Lockheed Martin.

Contract categories: Base package, Global package, and Deployment/Carrier-based package.

These measures address symptoms rather than root causes—specifically, low efficiency in production and sustainment (F-35 parts feature complex designs and extremely high maintenance costs; for instance, the estimated lifecycle cost for the U.S. fleet alone is around $1.6 trillion as of 2024).

Furthermore, the GAO has criticized both Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon for poor oversight of the global spare parts pool, citing issues such as the TR-3 hardware problems.
 

Attachments

  • HNqzxsyb0AAtH3H.jpg
    HNqzxsyb0AAtH3H.jpg
    496.9 KB · Views: 159
  • IMG_20260725_195829.jpg
    IMG_20260725_195829.jpg
    446.2 KB · Views: 59
  • Image_1784980880129.jpg
    Image_1784980880129.jpg
    217.9 KB · Views: 52
  • IMG_20260725_184244.jpg
    IMG_20260725_184244.jpg
    759.9 KB · Views: 53
  • Image_1784980995911.jpg
    Image_1784980995911.jpg
    180.4 KB · Views: 76
wtna7 said:
These measures address symptoms rather than root causes—specifically, low efficiency in production and sustainment (F-35 parts feature complex designs and extremely high maintenance costs; for instance, the estimated lifecycle cost for the U.S. fleet alone is around $1.6 trillion as of 2024).
Click to expand...
It is an undeniable fact that supply of spares is a critical thing, not just for the F-35 but any modern major platform, be it airborne, seaborne or terrestrial. Having stocks built up is a critical thing.

Also, don't get caught up on that $1.6 trillion number. It includes facilities, training etc and not just parts etc. Also, it is for a long time out to the 2080s. Try applying the same calculation rules to any other equivalent/competing platform and you will get similar numbers.
 
GTX said:
It is an undeniable fact that supply of spares is a critical thing, not just for the F-35 but any modern major platform, be it airborne, seaborne or terrestrial. Having stocks built up is a critical thing.

Also, don't get caught up on that $1.6 trillion number. It includes facilities, training etc and not just parts etc. Also, it is for a long time out to the 2080s. Try applying the same calculation rules to any other equivalent/competing platform and you will get similar numbers.
Click to expand...
This article focuses on the F-35 fighter jet (3); Part 4 will specifically address maintenance costs. (Part 4 is the final installment in the F-35 series and is of great significance; thank you for your support.)
 
https://defence-blog.com/contractor-wins-deal-to-build-classified-f-35-facility-in-arkansas/

Contractor wins deal to build classified F-35 facility in Arkansas​

A construction company has won a $37.6 million contract to build a facility so secure it needs its own classification category, part of a sprawling effort to turn a small Arkansas Air National Guard base into an international training hub for the world’s most advanced fighter jet.

BL Harbert International LLC, based in Birmingham, Alabama, has been awarded a contract worth $37,607,122 to construct an F-35 Special Access Program Facility, according to a Department of War contract announcement.

The total cumulative value of the contract, including previously awarded amounts, reaches $38,958,927, and the deal drew six competing bids submitted through the government’s online solicitation process before the Army selected BL Harbert. Work will take place in Fort Smith, Arkansas, with an estimated completion date of January 31, 2029.
Click to expand...
 
Looks like Brits will need to make or at least refurbish a lot of new canopies , here it looks like coating was peeling so bad crew scraped it off
 

Attachments

  • 2026-08-06_17h07_05.png
    2026-08-06_17h07_05.png
    1 MB · Views: 303
Last edited by a moderator:
hey im pretty new to this field was curious what are these boxes are??
are they trm packs?? i just know the green thing is anttena unit (vivaldi)
 

Attachments

  • 1787584968626.png
    1787584968626.png
    358 KB · Views: 390
Last edited by a moderator:
Assumption but 2019-2026 for a new coating with industrial grade manufacturing that offers a massive scale up in capacity, including with the inherent cooling requirements, seems pretty much that.
 
I just ran across a video on FB showing someone bolting the gun pod onto an F-35. The pod has an interesting wheeled dolly that looks like a box of 2" square tubing on tool box casters, which suggests it's not all that heavy a thing.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I just ran across a video on FB showing someone bolting the gun pod onto an F-35. The pod has an interesting wheeled dolly that looks like a box of 2" square tubing on tool box casters, which suggests it's not all that heavy a thing.
Click to expand...
Please share video so we can review
 
Scott Kenny said:
The pod has an interesting wheeled dolly that looks like a box of 2" square tubing on tool box casters, which suggests it's not all that heavy a thing.
Click to expand...
Nice find.
Well, bomb trolley isn't that bigger either while loading up to 3 bombs or ~2000+- lb. So we can't really tell the weight just yet.
Pretty sure the pod is unloaded anyway for safety.
Anyhow, it doesn't look like they needed to do some stealth treatment regarding the gap between pod and airframe.
 
It would be cool if the belly pod can be used to carry some sort of mini missile or bomb, like something the size of GBU-53 or CUDA equivalent, or at least some APKWS
 
I bet the trolley would not be of much use out of a surfaced area. Don't take me wrong, I am not asking for a 35 to be refueled in a mud pond but trolleys have to be pushed out of service area to the plane. With those kind of wheels, that probably extend the necessary surfaced area to host an F-35bsquadron, what is certainly contradicting USAF push for unprepared runway operations... And that just for 50$ castor wheel.
 
I would suspect that the equipment set for standard airbase operations and the equipment set for forward improvised airstrip operations are pretty different, and in any case I'm skeptical about the assumption that this particular piece of equipment is both (a) bespoke for F-35 operations and (b) irreplaceable for F-35 operations.

In other words, maybe a trolley is just a trolley. I also suspect that a savvy maintainer with a forklift certification could figure some alternate options.
 
TomcatViP said:
I bet the trolley would not be of much use out of a surfaced area. Don't take me wrong, I am not asking for a 35 to be refueled in a mud pond but trolleys have to be pushed out of service area to the plane. With those kind of wheels, that probably extend the necessary surfaced area to host an F-35bsquadron, what is certainly contradicting USAF push for unprepared runway operations... And that just for 50$ castor wheel.
Click to expand...
They do make bigger diameter pneumatic tires for tool boxes. 5" instead of 4" solids.

And a loaded tool box can easily reach or exceed 1000lbs.
 
NMaude said:
I assume you're speaking from personal experience in your USN service?
Click to expand...
No, this was from my old personal roll-around toolbox. Loaded, mine was "only" about 400lbs. But I had a skinny little 26" wide 10 drawer. Half the people I worked with had either two of those bolted together or 50" wide, and the old diesel mechanic friend of mine has a pair of 50s bolted together.
 
NMaude said:
Would that also mean that in combat use the pylon would be jettisoned after its' payload was launched?
Click to expand...
Likely. Maybe some sort of two-piece pylon with disposable outer section, as the wing itself obviously doesn't contain ejector unit.

Alternatively, I wonder if the central station (gunpod one) can be used like this.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom